AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Publishing house v/s self-publishing

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 8, 2011
912
1,151
61
lordmagellan.wordpress.com
As a budding writer I’m told constantly to read more authors in whatever genre I want to write in; my dilemma being I want to write in many of them. Mostly, I read non-fiction for references, but that’s neither here nor there.

In trying to get serious about this writing shit, I sometimes explore the publishing side of things and frankly, it’s overwhelming. But looking to the indie scene, which is all but exploding right now, I find a bit of hope. So I find myself contrasting the two and it got me wondering what people prefer to read.

I've yet to actually explore any indie authors, but I do like the punk rock feel it has. The “fuck your scene, this is my art, take it or fuck off” attitude (or maybe “here’s this thing I did, hope you like it?). I like the idea that I’m getting an author’s words and ideas conveyed in the way they want them conveyed. And I like that I’m not forced into watching a different version of the same hero/heroine match wits with the same villain/monstrous lover over and over again. Not to mention the pay that goes to the author rather than everyone else.

But at the same time, there’s comfort in knowing that a book has been edited to read well. Let’s face it: not all writers are great at conveying their ideas and need editors to help them become readable. I know indie authors can pay to have their stories edited, but there’s still a little extra comfort in knowing it’s been edited if put out by an established publisher.

It seems for authors, there are more pros than cons with regard to self-publishing, especially with the new ease of e-publishing. But from a reader’s POV, I don't yet; because, like I said, I haven't really explored the indie scene.

So what do you people prefer? Or do you even consider the option?
Also, any suggestions?
 
I am still trying to finish catching up on reading the classics... but I will say that a lot of the publishing house books were not edited very well. The closer to modern work I go, the more grammar, spelling, and typo errors I find in the work, despite it being released by a publisher.

I think, if you read an indie-author and find their work lacking, send them a letter. If they're open to your suggestions, then yay! If you get no word back, check out a work that is published a few years after your letter to see if they improved. If so, yay! If they say fuck off, or if there's no response but it's obvious they aren't improving, then leave them alone.

If you are publishing your own work, it really depends on what you want. A friend of mine told me that if I get my book published through a publishing house, I need to expect that it will not look anything like what I wrote when they're through with it. Selling your own works is kinda difficult though.

If you're wanting to make money off of it, your best bet is to go through a publishing house. If you don't care about the money but just want it to read right, your best bet it to hire an editor, but don't let them actually change the document. They should add their notes to a hard-copy of the document, and you change which bits you feel need to be changed.
 
true self publishing is a bit of a scam really. not because you dont get what you pay for. you do. all the self publishing companies will print your material for you. if you pay for it they even do editing and other services. then they send you how ever many copies you pay for. you sell them or give them away as you choose after that. of course you still hold all copyrights and distribution rights so you can still publish with a company later on.

indie publishing is awesome,and youre much more likely to get published. but the pay for your work is lower and the distribution isnt as broad, nor is the advertising. it is still the way a lot of new authors are breaking out. its how i plan to go when i decide which of my projects to lead with. probably going to get an agent first since im skittish about which companies are worth going to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
Back when I was a budding writer 20 years ago there were around 3,500 books published a week. These days its rather worse.

You could publish though a site like http://www.smashwords.com/ and see if what you are writing crap or not.

If you think you are actually any good then submit your manuscript to publishing houses and wait for the ridicule. If it comes back reviewed but rejected you are better 99.9% of budding authors.
 
I wouldn't bother self publishing for dead tree book. However, I think it is very viable route for e publishing. Ebooks sales passed printed book sales last year, and for a new author I see no reason to print a book. On the other hand a good editor is invaluable, and the lack of an editor is my biggest problem most ebooks.

I friend of mine has hired an editor and is paying him herself for her very unusual true story. I think it smart decision on her part.
 
I too have been wondering about the whole self-publishing trend vs using the traditional routes...I tend to gravitate more towards used book stores and libraries for my reading, but have recently started reading more ebooks and it got me curious. I found a program that Amazon does....
http://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html?topic=200260520
...anyone have any experience or insight to share?
 
Oh fuck me! I checked this earlier when I couldn't reply and was like, "Why is everyone giving me publishing suggestions?" Now I realize why!

This part--- So what do you people prefer?

Should have read like this---So what do you people prefer to read?

Sorry for the mix-up, folks. But I do appreciate the suggestions (and it was a good laugh at myself). This really got rolling in my head after listening to this: http://geeksguideshow.com/2013/03/28/ggg83-hugh-howey/

Geeks Guide is a new discovery for me and I rather enjoy it. There is a transcript of the episode, but I've yet to look for it. I think the episode is about an hour long [Edit: 1:50 hr] and the first half or so is talking to Hugh Howey, who is apparently seeing a lot of success with e-publishing; the second half is devoted to talking about the pros and cons of self-publishing versus going to a house publisher and they list a lot of different e-publishers for anyone who wants some other ideas. If I find the transcript, I'll post so you don't have to listen and try to remember or jot them down before you forget.

[Edit:Apparently the transcript isn't up, yet.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: LiLredhairedgrl
Ok now I don't understand the question :?

I have 1/2 dozen bookshelves all jammed with books, despite donating lot over the years to the library. So 90% of all the books I buy in the future will be ebooks.
 
For this old guy, ebooks. They are half the price if you are paying for them, you can change the font size and they don't take up any space. I have hundreds of books and some I have read a dozen times. That still means they sit around gathering dust for 99.999000% of their lives. I don't think I will ever buy a novel in paper again, but some technical books are more use in paper.
 
I still read printed books. My wife found a free program that turned her notebook into a kindle and she has been enjoying the e-books but she also still reads printed books. We go to the library and all 3 of us (17 year old Brad Jr included) actively read from the library. In fact I just finished a book of Georgia Tann. We have a ton of printed books and have also given away many of them so the idea of e-books is nice in terms of storage. But I still prefer printed material personally plus I have a few older first editions I have collected.
:thumbleft:
 
  • Like
Reactions: lordmagellan
Brad said:
I still read printed books. My wife found a free program that turned her notebook into a kindle and she has been enjoying the e-books but she also still reads printed books. We go to the library and all 3 of us (17 year old Brad Jr included) actively read from the library. In fact I just finished a book of Georgia Tann. We have a ton of printed books and have also given away many of them so the idea of e-books is nice in terms of storage. But I still prefer printed material personally plus I have a few older first editions I have collected.
:thumbleft:
Every time I see you post, I ask myself if I've had a psychotic break and I'm posting under my given name. :? :lol:

I'm like you. I love the feel of the printed editions and the smell (even though the dust in some threatens my life) and just looking at them. Hell, I like rearranging the bookshelf!
But yea, I should buy an e-reader to save space.
 
im a dead tree fanatic still. the mystiqu and connectedness of paper bound, the wieght of it in my hads still feels magical to me. i like ebooks and plan on getting a dedicated read soon. the kindle i used from the library was awesome and u can carry a bunch with you all at once. ill still always have some books on a shelf made fo paper thought. it goes beyond the words within.
 
Ooh, this is a toughie for me. :think: At any given moment I have 50+ books active on my kindle and 40+ physical books on my book shelf. Mostly it depends on the author. Once I find an author I like, I do everything I can to read the rest of their works.

My favorite method for the library is walking in to the library and just start grabbing books off the shelves and reading the backs at random until I find a summary that sounds interesting. Online I browse the free section on Amazon or go through my library's website and read reviews/summaries until I see something that catches my attention. I usually completely ignore whether it's been self published or not because then I could potentially end up limiting myself and miss out on tons of good books.

There was one particularly fantastic book I found through Amazon, that I *believe* was self published, called Inside The Outside. It was about a teenage cannibal who escapes a cult and what happens afterwards (it's fairly graphic, don't read if you have a weak stomach). If I'd been searching for only certain books that were published a certain way, I could have missed out on that and it was really, really interesting. Granted, I've also found a few stinkers that I wish I hadn't wasted my time on. But if I'd only been willing to read books published through an established publishing house then I would have never been able to decide for myself if they were awful or not.

So it really doesn't make a difference to me. I like to keep my options open so that I can potentially find hidden gems. :twocents-02cents:
 
I'm a print fan forever!

I'm about to get dork-central, but I've been self-publishing my writing for about 15 years in the form of zines, mini-novellas and chapbooks, and I've always made the copies and done the binding myself. I've not published anything that a staple or a quick stitch wouldn't secure, but in the near future I'll be looking into independent publishers. I'm not the type to pander to a large publisher, I'm still a punk even though my work has drifted. I've moved from strictly creative nonfiction/memoir into historical fiction + magical realism, and everything I write now becomes way too long to publish myself.

In reality, I'd love to join forces with others and start a publishing collective someday.

I've been following this trend of independent writers switching to only publishing e-books, and it's much to my dismay! I hate reading on a screen. I like to write on/mark up all texts I read (don't lend me your books!) and I generally can't get through them. I don't have one of those little reading machines, and I don't want one. I like to be surrounded by books at all times. Dusty ones, pages ripped out, water-damaged from life. I don't care, as long as I can touch it. I'm not a reader of most classics (my tastes are weirdly limited and I'm a Taurus so you can't force me into anything), I prefer shorter texts that match my shorter attention span. Somehow, reading even the shortest e-book would never feel as much like pouring over some magical text to me.

Plus, what on earth are people doing with their e-book "covers?" Even the most brilliant writers and poets in my immediate circle have the most hideous pixelated stock images on the book preview. Is it that they don't have control over that aspect?

Yes, I judge a book by its cover ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
AmeliaArcana said:
Plus, what on earth are people doing with their e-book "covers?" Even the most brilliant writers and poets in my immediate circle have the most hideous pixelated stock images on the book preview. Is it that they don't have control over that aspect?

Yes, I judge a book by its cover ;)
My Kindle shows the book covers when I go to start reading a new book. :) Plus Amazon shows the book covers under the listings.

I used to be very against Kindles until my grandfather bought me one without asking and then guilt tripped me into keeping it "because he'd rather see me read than put another dime into his savings that he can't use anyways now that grandma's gone." :roll: It's definitely not the same as having a tangible book, but it saves up lots of space, allows me to branch out farther from my comfort zone for books and allows me to read more and faster. Plus I can still highlight parts of the text and what not like I would if it was a tangible book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LadyLuna
e-book vs physical books:

um, well, while I prefer physical books, my dust-mite allergy keeps me mostly e-book. Until my partner and I have our own house with a room dedicated to books where all the bookshelves have glass doors so we can find the books, and get to the books, but the dust isn't so bad.

self-published vs publishing house:

I already commented on this in my first post, but I'll say it again. I'm still trying to catch up on all the classics. As far as I know, I haven't read any self-published, but... well... that's not because I have anything against them. Just because I haven't had the money for books lately, so I haven't been able to get anything new. Or anything really. And all the free e-books I've seen are those classics I've been wanting to read... so it works.
 
I absolutely love reading on my Kindle. After how many hours a day I spend on my computer reading and looking at images on backlit screens, it's great to read on its e-ink display. It's so much more comfortable on my eyes. Reading books is good too. Where the Kindle beats the pants off books for me is convenience. Finish a book in a series and want to start on the next one immediately? If you have a wireless connection, you don't even have to move. Working on a few books and not sure which one to take with you? Take them all! They're all on the same device. It also tends to save money unless you buy used books... and saves me money even then because I have such a strong preference for hardcover books.

I'll still purchase some things in a physical format. Most will be collectible or have special significance for me and will be hardcover if available. For most other things, I will stick to my Kindle. Pictures below are relevant. :D
 

Attachments

  • 2013-04-24 17.15.33-1.jpg
    2013-04-24 17.15.33-1.jpg
    577 KB · Views: 30
  • 2013-04-24 17.21.55-1.jpg
    2013-04-24 17.21.55-1.jpg
    1,014 KB · Views: 30
  • Like
Reactions: LiLredhairedgrl
I much prefer e-books now. I will read a printed book if there is not an e-book option. I have many printed books in my library but the ease of use, being able to carry a whole library in your hand, searching and just the readability of the e-ink technology makes e-books the winner by a mile. Maybe I am just not a romantic about printed books any longer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.